Movie Review of The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

Well, here we are at last – here at the end of all Jackson movie review posts. And I am glad you are with me, dear readers. What a journey it has been, starting in 2001 with “The Fellowship of the Ring.” I reflected on this amazing time period on December 18, the day after I saw The Hobbit: TBOFA for the first time. If you’re interested in reminiscing with me, check out:

My Facebook Photo Album

A video compilation of photos from 2001-2014

Containing this awesome end credit song sung by the one and only Billy Boyd! I think Annie Lennox and “Into the West” still gets me on a deeper emotional level, but hey, this song is great too! 🙂

I’ve now seen Hobbit: BOFA twice (Dec. 17 and 19) in normal 2D showings. My short, spoiler-free review of this most recent film (which I’ve been telling people all week) is: i liked movie 3 better than movie 2, but not as much as movie 1. And I personally enjoyed the Lord of the Rings films more than the Hobbit films.

Detailed review follows below beneath the picture of my Hobbit movie ticket stubs. BEWARE! There be spoilers below!

All my Hobbit movie ticket stubs. Saw movie 1 four times (2D, 3D, and 24 and 48 fps), and the other 2 twice in regular 2D.

Spoilers begin here!!!

I will admit openly that I was not overly inspired to see this film. Movie 2 proved to be such a disappointment, I ended up attending this last one out of duty rather than excitement. Even after selling 60 tickets to other Wheaties and making plans to see the film twice, I kept forgetting the day of the event that I was going to see the film that evening! All that to say: my expectations were so low I no doubt was thrilled at any moment in the film which gave me unexpected delight or seemed to capture the spirit of the book.

The scenery and costuming were beautiful as always (when has New Zealand or the camera crew or WETA ever let us down, now really?). The acting was very well executed, I thought, and Martin Freeman incomparable, as usual. This movie also gets bonus points for animal diversity. We got sled rabbits, war pigs and mountain goats (or were those sheep?), that crazy bull moose (or whatever it was) that Thranduil rides, bats which give rides to dashing elves, talking ravens (extra bonus points there for story authenticity), and the completely unnecessary, unexplained, and not even used after their introduction: WERE WORMS. *smacks forehead* Really? Really?

And the romance that was in movie 2 between Tauriel and Kili? Yep, it was still there. I did not, however, want to claw through the back of my theater seat while watching it this time, so either the dialog was slightly better (even while still in an unbelievable context), or my aforementioned low expectations proved a suitable numbing agent. Legolas continued his larger-than-life stunts as well, which always prove amusing and leave me chuckling. More than one student pointed out that his leaping onto falling stones defied the laws of physics, but hey, he’s Legolas, and he just did it.

Everyone who was supposed to die did die. This was great, since letting Thorin live would have caused havoc with the story, but I did miss seeing proper burials and acknowledgements of the losses. No Thorin with Orcrist and the Arkenstone in his tomb beneath the mountain. Pity. Several plot threads were left dangling, which although it did not greatly upset me, was at least regrettable: what happens to Tauriel?, did Thranduil get his jewels?, what happens to the unctuous Alfrid?, how did the dwarves and men rebuild their lives after the battle?, did Dain become king? (we all know he did…but still, nice to have such things confirmed, right?)

I truly appreciated the themes of greed explored in the film with the effect of treasure on Thorin and how it impacted his relationships. This was spot-on with the feeling I got in the book with these sections, and nicely accented with comparisons to Smaug’s character, and the beautiful scene with Bilbo holding the acorn and his appreciation for simple pleasures. Bilbo’s character in the film in general was fantastic. He is humble, loving, self-sacrificing, has little desire for treasure, and embodied everything we expect from our dear Mr. Baggins. The scenes with the Arkenstone, the mithril shirt, and the confrontation with Thorin at the gate were particularly poignant for me. And I’m forever grateful for the inclusion of my all-time favorite Tolkien quote, spoken by Thorin at his parting with Bilbo. It is paraphrased in the movie, but the meaning was the same:

If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.

Well-spoken, Thorin, and hear hear! I noticed several sections with text almost verbatim from the book, which I’ve had the benefit of re-reading very recently whilst leading a Hobbit book discussion group this fall. The conversation between Thorin and Bard at the gate was heavy with book residue.

One book to screen scene which suffered some botched meaning was the parting scene between Bilbo and Gandalf just before Bilbo returns to Bag End to find the auction going on. In the book, the text runs thusly:

“Then the prophecies of the old songs have turned out to be true, after a
fashion!” said Bilbo.
“Of course!” said Gandalf. “And why should not they prove true? Surely you
don’t disbelieve the prophecies, because you had a hand in bringing them about yourself? You don’t really suppose, do you, that all your adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck, just for your sole benefit? You are a very fine person, Mr. Baggins, and I am very fond of you; but you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all!”
“Thank goodness!” said Bilbo laughing, and handed him the tobacco-jar.

In the film, it is made to look like this speech is all about the Ring, with Gandalf stating that it is the source of much of Bilbo’s luck, and serves as a convenient plot-arc over to the Lord of the Rings, which is more than likely, and understandably, what the screenwriters wanted to accomplish with it. The Ring is the largest connecting piece between the two tales, after all, and the main focus of the later story.

However, the book quotes rest on the authority of the prophecies coming true for purposes outside of Bilbo’s own welfare. This suggestive statement points to another directing Force or Will behind the events of the story, made even more evident by a closer examination of all the instances of “luck” which occur during the tale. “Luck” is often wrapped together with the fruition of prophecy, such as the revelation of the moon letters on the map of the Lonely Mountain, and the return of the king under the mountain. Looking for Divine presence and influence in Tolkien’s tales is one of my chiefest delights, so it was disappointing to me to see this section watered down, and Bilbo’s last line of humility lost, stating his gladness to be a small person in a large and mysterious world.

I loved the ending in the Shire, and the silver spoons making their famous appearance in the possession of Lobelia Sackville-Baggins. I had heard a couple years ago that Frodo’s parents had been cast and maybe we’d get a glimpse of them and a younger Frodo, perhaps as a story arc between the Hobbit and Rings films. No luck there! The Extended Edition is the last hope for that one. Bilbo and Frodo’s relationship has always interested me, so this was a disappointment to not see that develop before Frodo’s adoption as Bilbo’s heir.

Some other tidbits Tolkien fans may appreciate:

• We don’t know anything about Legolas’s mother (at least nothing I’ve seen), so the movie was free to invent those facts.
• Mount Gundabad was indeed the source of goblin armies, one of their main strongholds.
• Aragorn was born in 2931, and The Hobbit takes place in 2941. I really missed seeing a 10-year-old Aragorn running through Rivendell in movie 1 (missed opportunity!), and one would hazard a guess that he wouldn’t have done anything significant enough at that tender age to make Thranduil recommend Legolas seek him out as a man of “potential greatness.” Maybe Legolas babysat him for a couple years? hehe 🙂 Another friend of mine suggested the movies are slightly ahead of the book chronology. Anybody know more about this?
• The White Council did kick Sauron out of Dol Guldur, and Galadriel did favor Gandalf above Saruman. Exactly what went down during the kicking-out is something I need to brush up on. Comments on this welcome!

The fight between Azog and Thorin was definitely edge-of-seat cringe-worthy as well. Loved him tossing the ball and chain and watching Azog slip off into the water. And they had me hoping for a way out for Thorin before I remembered he had to die in that fight. Pity.

All that said, and reflecting on the whole film trilogy now, I would have to say that in the end, I do think these films would have been SIGNIFICANTLY stronger if they had made 2 movies instead of 3. I felt that there were so many gratuitous scenes, irresponsible dialog and storytelling moments, and “filler” content, that often the key story elements and characters got lost and then the whole momentum of the film fell flat. Did you know that the last film (at 114 minutes long) only covers 72pp. of source material from the book? That’s more screen time than pages, folks. Why not trim the 45 minutes chasing Smaug in movie two, trim some additional battle scenes in BotFA, ditch the Kili/Tauriel romance and end it nicely in 2 films? It would have helped the choppier points in editing as well and tightened the whole thing up better.

There were also several elements that were not just reminiscent of the Rings films, they were IDENTICAL. The manner of healing by Tauriel in movie 2 was so close to Liv Tyler’s glowing, it felt like a disservice to fans. Several sound effects and other elements seemed cut and pasted directly out of the Rings films. I know Jackson had intended a similar feel to the Rings films for consistency, but this felt more like repetitive laziness than consistency. If it could have only felt old, but been new…that would have nailed the sweet spot for fans.

But still, whether it pleased fans or not, whether it was good film making or not, whether it was a suitable re-telling of The Hobbit or not, I am grateful to Jackson and his team for bringing these films to the screen. They’re fans as well, and told the story in their own way. Because of them, I’ve had amazing moments with many friends watching these films, and will no doubt continue doing so at film events well into the future. Because of them, I can say Tolkien character names in conversation and have instant recognition from my listeners. Because of them, I have seen a generation led back to the books, and a revolution of new-interest in these stories and their author. Tolkien is back in common culture, and for a long-time fan and reader like me, that’s the sweetest part of all. I’m grateful. Thanks, Peter.

OK, so who wants to do re-makes of these films now? Any takers???

The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug – A Movie Review Pt. 2

Given the criteria in the last blog post, some of you might be saying: “but Laura, DOS was not an adaptation, but a re-telling of The Hobbit based on the book but not trying to be the book.” Fair enough, fair enough. And until we get the DVD in our hands, or PJ gives some good interview feedback, we can’t exactly know what his intentions as storyteller / movie maker are with this re-telling. I can tell you that I’m eager to hear what he and the other screenwriters have to say, and why certain choices were made in this new telling of the tale.

What I was hoping for in this movie was for the spirit of The Hobbit to be felt. I definitely felt a good portion of the “heart of the story” in The Lord of the Rings films, and in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (my review of the first Hobbit film is also available for reading). I remember walking out of Fellowship of the Ring elated that finally people would be able to understand via the screen how the books had felt to read. That spirit diminished in DOS, in my opinion, and was all but snuffed out by the end of the film. This is why, overall, DOS was disappointing for me, and from what I hear, for many other Tolkien fans too. Ironically, movie critics and the general audience liked DOS far better than “Unexpected Journey” due to the fact that it was faster-paced and had more action sequences. So far, the film has scored 75% approval from critics and 87% approval from general audience fans on www.rottentomatoes.com. Those who disliked “Unexpected Journey” for being slow have said “Peter Jackson is finally back on the path and doing great.” And for those critics who still think the movie was too long – they are probably of the ilk who thought Return of the King had too many endings (boo!)…although many fans are still wondering why The Hobbit has to be three films at all when two may have sufficed just fine, and saved the story from becoming too over-inflated.

But enough chit-chat on abstraction, let’s dig into what I felt the film did well, and could have improved upon.

-SPOILERS START HERE-

As predicted, we go first to Beorn’s house, but stay there for a surprisingly short visit. Instead of the dwarves making their memorable (and hilarious) entrances 2 at a time to avoid angering and overwhelming their host, he chases them in bear form into his home and they lock him out. Granted, there wouldn’t have been much time for meandering entrances in the film as they were already being chased by Azog and his orc horde. What I think is a pity is that with Beorn, with the eagles, and the wargs we are missing a richness of culture as they appear briefly on the screen and then disappear. There is a deepness of understanding missing in the elven and dwarven cultures too that I find troubling but harder to pin down. Perhaps simply a lack of subtle and artful strokes in their execution. The eagles and wargs are not even given the gift of speech. Luckily, the spiders of Mirkwood don’t miss out and are allowed to talk. Could more richness of Middle-earth and Tolkien’s marvelous cultures therein  enhance the plot more if given a chance to get into the action in their own ways? I’m not sure, but I’d really like to see that given a fair shot sometime! We do get to marvel at Beorn’s shape, and hear some of his story, and his marvelous home, but not much. He is a character of mystery in the book too.

Then on to Mirkwood and Gandalf leaves the party to go investigate Dol Guldur more closely to see what evil is lurking there.

<nerd moment> – excuse the interruption:

This is actually very fairly accurate, and I’ve enjoyed seeing PJ and crew bring more of this backstory to the screen. In Tolkien’s writings, Gandalf investigated Dol Guldur on his own twice to discover that the mysterious Necromancer making Mirkwood sick was in fact Sauron. The White Council (Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, Saruman et al) decide to oust Sauron from Mirkwood and go against him in force during the same time as Bilbo’s journey with the dwarves. That is why Gandalf leaves them before entering Mirkwood to go and aid this work. I find it interesting to note however that the concept of the Nazgul being buried in tombs (the “High Fells”) and thought impotent is entirely a PJ creation. In Tolkien’s writing, they go into hiding and exile, and later become more active in the North, Dol Guldur, and Mordor. But I digress…

</nerd moment>

I was overall really pleased with the Mirkwood sequence of the film (the feelings of confusion and despair, the beauty of the forest roof when Bilbo goes to investigate), and the spiders scene was suitably in-line with how that section of the book felt, and in this case we can be grateful it was SHORTER. That part always tends to drag when I read it. Bilbo is also sensing the evil influence of the Ring in this film a great deal moreso than in the previous one, which is appropriate in keeping with the LotR films emphasis on its powers of corruption, and some fans may argue is in line with The Hobbit as well, although I’m not certain it is emphasized as strongly there.

And we have a much bolder Bilbo in DOS! So much so that his character arc seems to have come a long way since movie one and gotten him on his way to acting consistently brave and surprisingly good with a sword. I wish that more emphasis had been placed on his story continuing as the title figure as he seems to have gotten a bit lost in movie 2 (which I have heard from multiple reviewers as a concern), and also that much of his courage (in the book) came from knowing the Ring could aid him with invisibility. Martin Freeman’s performance continues to be consistently delightful.

Once the company reaches the Elven King’s halls, some major plot-departures from the original story come into play. The Mirkwood elves appear to battle the spiders, along with Legolas (who is the Mirkwood prince) and Tauriel (elf captain of the guard and a completely new character dreamt up by PJ and the other screenwriters). We know very little of Thranduil from the books other than the fact he was susceptible to greed of treasure, and he and the dwarves didn’t get along great. PJ has expanded this back story a bit by making the feud more personal to Thorin, and it seems fitting to do so for movie storytelling. Thranduil struck me as a rather flat character and a distortion of his face at one moment in the film makes us all wonder what else PJ and crew will reveal about him later. My guess is he is succumbing to dragon fever (greed) like Thorin’s ancestors – but we shall see.

We also start to see a love triangle develop here between Legolas, Tauriel, and (unbelievably) Kili the dwarf. Here again the ugly truth resurfaces that if you don’t understand the cultures and spirit of those cultures in a created world well, chaos can ensue. Nowhere in all of Tolkien’s corpus of work does there ever feature a dwarf-elf romance. The closest we come is Gimli’s admiration for Galadriel, but that is just that: admiration. If a subtle hand had attempted this, and done it well, it might have worked, but it struck me as an audience member as forced, unbelievable, distracting, and completely unnecessary. Add some cheesy dialog (really, I’m surprised that the dialog made it past the editing powers of the writing team that produced the LotR films…) and that is one sad bowl of soup. It wasn’t as bad here though as later in the film, though. Oh no.

My favorite scene in DOS has to be the escape from the Elven King’s halls in the barrels, proving once again that it is emphatically NOT just reproducing what is in the book that makes a film enjoyable. This scene had plenty of hilarious action. In both showings I was in, the audience reacted with great enthusiasm, and the laughter was loud through the entire scene. Legolas skipping across dwarf heads, creative orc deaths, and Bombur’s amazing stunt that just kept going and going had us all in delighted stitches. I’d re-watch the film again just for that scene. 🙂

Lake Town was also creatively imagined and very cool to visit. All the visuals in the films kept, in my opinion, their high standards (go WETA and art / costume departments!). Bard and his new story of being a poor boatman with children worked fine in my opinion and made him a likeable character. The Master was suitably unctuous and even had his own Wormtongue-esque toady. I have little to comment on with Lake Town as overall I felt that sequence was done very well. The reciting of the prophecy about Thorin gave me chills of pleasure!

The departure from Lake Town starts the sad downfall of the remainder of the film (roughly the last third to quarter of the production). The dwarf company splits up due to Kili being injured – substantially injuring, in my opinion, the camaraderie of the company and the staunch kinship that the dwarves need to have and maintain for the heart of the story to remain intact.

Entering Erebor is a simply magical moment. The despair with not reading the map correctly, and the almost-dropped key, kept the audience on the edge of our seats and Wheaton cheered a great deal when Thorin retrieved the key and opened that door. The homecoming and tears in Balin’s eyes were a wonderful moment of empathy for our homeless dwarves and was one of the more touching parts of the film. Bilbo’s bravery in going in to scout out Smaug’s lair and the beginning of his conversation with Smaug were also wonderfully executed. And that dragon…was…fabulous to behold. They did an amazing job on Smaug’s design and execution.

AND THEN THINGS JUST GOT WORSE…

After these portions of the film, I felt like much of the tale simply descended into chaos, even from a strictly movie-only perspective without keeping the book in mind at all.

Back at Lake Town, Legolas and Tauriel turn up to battle the orcs who have also arrived on the scene again (Azog and his crew are a threat through the whole film). Interestingly enough, Bolg (the other “big mean orc” in the film) is actually Azog’s son and leads the orcish forces in the Battle of the Five armies in the book. He is killed by Beorn there, so there’s a possible spoiler for movie 3! Legolas gets a bloody nose for the first time in his life, and Tauriel stays with Kili to heal him, glow, and have a romantic moment with some of the cheesiest dialog I’ve ever heard and made me go into uncontrollable cringing at BOTH movie showings I attended. The excessive orc fighting in these scenes, and the romance scene, is again entirely unnecessary to the story, and instead of adding to it makes it flounder.

At the Lonely Mountain Bilbo inexplicably reveals himself to Smaug by removing the Ring, and Smaug also inexplicably decides not to eat him or breath fire on him, but keeps him talking. Instead of a beloved scene perfectly executed (like the Riddles game from movie 1), we get name calling, and then all the dwarves rushing into Smaug’s layer also being inexplicably uneaten or burnt to crisps. They are able to outrun Smaug, and be smarter than him (and he is supposedly quite clever), and call him names. Too bad none of their hundreds of ancestors had thought of this clever plan and were instead killed.

They then hatch a plan to try and kill him in a complex use of molten gold and dwarf smithy work and chemistry sets. One reviewer called this a convoluted and unbelievable “MacGyver plan with Thorin and his studly wheelbarrow.” Truly, from a movie watcher perspective, it seemed to make absolutely no sense. It simply did not work, and many reviewers (while they appreciated the achievement of the dragon design) thought that the excessive running around could have been trimmed by a good 20 minutes. Are you sure that Beorn couldn’t have used 5 of those minutes, PJ? Really?

At the end of the sequence, Smaug the Golden becomes a reality, and I’m not gonna lie, he looked AMAZING. Perhaps the convoluted plot was worth it just for the moment when he soars into the night spreading gold drops everywhere. It was lovely.

And then the cliff hanger ending of Smaug not meeting his doom until the next film.

I missed the conversation between Bilbo and Smaug done in a way that made sense, and the subtlety of Bilbo’s cunning and courage, and the slow revelation of Smaug’s wicked treachery and Thorin’s growing greed. Instead I felt bludgeoned in my movie theater seat and deprived of watching a story take flight and soar. It hit the ground at the end, but I shall remain thankful for the good moments along the way and see what happens with movie 3. In many ways this second installment reminds me of my disappointment after The Two Towers came out (still my least favorite of the LotR trilogy), but I feel that the liberties taken in DOS were more extreme and will be harder to make peace with in the long run. Only time will tell. And really, the best part of this movie was the people I got to see it with. I wouldn’t trade that for anything. 😉

And for those who like cameo counts and trivia – Peter Jackson’s daughter and Stephen Colbert both make appearances in this film. I saw PJ’s daughter but didn’t catch Stephen. Must look for him next time.

And that, fair reader, is my review. Respectfully submitted. Thanks for reading.

The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug – A Movie Review Pt. 1

Alright folks, let’s get this review started.

HOW I SPENT DECEMBER 13, 2013

I went to the midnight showing of DOS with a group of 11 people, crawling home afterwards to get 5 hours of sleep before going to work, then proceeded back to the theater with 291 Wheaton College faculty, staff, and students (and some other friends) to watch the movie again in a private screening. It was a BLAST, and there’s no better way to experience a film than with a passionate and engaged audience. Opinions of the film varied amongst our group, but many were disappointed about how much variance there was between The Hobbit as a book and the second film. This got me thinking about the perennial discussion on adaptations of books to the screen, and I think that this review really needs to have a bit of context along those lines before I dive into the actual film discussion.

WHAT ARE THE ISSUES WITH ADAPTATIONS?

It’s happened to many of us – a favorite book gets turned into a less-than-wonderful film. Should we be disappointed? Should we just look at it as a movie and forget the book? Should we allow for artistic license and allow the director’s vision to stand on its own and create something new? What to do??? Obviously this varies by person, and me providing the One Answer to Rule them All on this topic is not gonna happen in this blog post, but I can at least state my opinion and hope it’s helpful to somebody out there reading this, so here it goes.

I am increasingly convinced that television and movies are the modern storytelling vehicles of our time. They shape our identity, they connect us as a society, they question areas of truth and reality that we like to mull over…and do a lot of things that myths in previous societies used to do. Have a conversation with someone and sooner or later a movie quote is interjected into the dialog to make a point, get a laugh, and/or make an instant connection. People need stories to place themselves in the world around them and make sense of life. The best stories, or “the ones that stay with you” as Sam Gamgee says, are the ones that are passed down over the years, kept, re-used, re-told, and brought out again and again because they’ve got something special about them that we need to keep hearing. It’s been that way for a long time, and we have only changed the method by which those stories are delivered.

But with the changing method comes the fact that different mediums have different needs. A book translated page to page to film simply does not work. So by what criteria can you judge the success of an adaptation? Pure enjoyment value? How successful it is living in the new medium? How many points in the plot it actually hits? Or something else?

I’m going to suggest it’s the “something else” we’re craving in our adaptations. It’s the “something special” in that particular story that we need to keep hearing, and that is a mighty hard thing to lay one’s finger on. For my purposes here, I’m going to refer to this as the “spirit” or “heart” of the story. Stories need to keep emerging and changing to match the world around them and remain applicable, and if their “spirit” is intact, the adaptation still does its work of delivering the tale well. These are the rare adaptations that captivate new and old fans alike. Want some examples?

The Lizzie Bennet Diaries – A modern re-telling of Jane Austen’s classic Pride and Prejudice. There have been many versions before this out there, and fans are very loyal to the original work, but despite the fact that this new version dropped characters (even changing 2 of them into animals), changed names, and had some plot twists entirely different from the original work, it is LOVED by Austen fans. The reason? I think because it kept the spirit of the story, remained loyal to its characters and their personalities, and kept the essential elements to make that combination work.

Sherlock – BBC – In the vein of one of C.S. Lewis’s “supposals” – Suppose Sherlock Holmes were living in modern day London, and suppose that he had the same brains and talents as his Victorian counterpart, but with all of modern technology and society at his disposal – what would the original stories look like? They’d look a lot like this new adaptation of the Holmes stories. Holmes has his Watson, his brother, his housekeeper, and they all play their classic roles and do them well, but in a modern context that wows its modern audience in all the same ways the original stories did over a century ago. That’s a successful adaptation.

Those kinds of adaptations take art, subtlety, and a great understanding of how the building blocks of story: character, setting, and plot work in harmony to create the heart of a tale. An adaptation therefore becomes, in essence, a heart transplant of the original tale into its new adaptation home.

So when fans whine about the fact that small details from a story don’t make it onto the screen, these are small trifles compared to what they really crave: the same FEELING of the tale they got when they first encountered it. And that, dear friends, is what more screenwriters should pursue in capturing.

That’s my first set-up for this review, and much like DOS I’m going to be slightly mean with a cliff-hanger and save my actual review of the film for part 2 of this blog posting.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Movie Review

Ladies and gentlemen, we interrupt these Enneagram blog postings for an important Hobbit movie review. 🙂

My Hobbit movie experience was memorable to say the least. It began with the 12:01 AM 3D showing with 30 people (mostly from the Wheaton College Tolkien Society). The following day, Wheaton College booked a private 2D screening for 427 of us, and the atmosphere was electric. The communal feeling in that theater and all the “right” reactions of “Ooos,” “Ahhs” and laughter made the film sparkle even more. We’ve had a good amount of Hobbit fever on campus in the past weeks, and this video about the Wade Center and The Hobbit also came out of that time-period:
http://wheaton.edu/Feature-Stories/The-Hobbit

After seeing the film twice and giving it some thought, I wanted to share my official review via my blog. Feel free to pass this along wherever it might be helpful.

*SPOILERS START HERE*

WAIT…THAT WASN’T IN THE BOOK!

One of the larger concerns I and many other Tolkien fans had coming to this film was wondering how screenwriters Peter Jackson, Fran, Philippa Boyens, and Guillermo del Toro were going to take a 300 page book and turn it into 3 feature-length films. We knew there would be additional material from other locations in Tolkien’s works, but how would those be incorporated? I have to say that the use of these additional texts was appropriate, delightful, and faithfully integrated into the story. The new narrative portions were brief, and stayed (overall) with the spirit of the characters. For example, Tolkien tells us Galadriel favored Gandalf as the head of the White Council rather than Saruman, and her actions and dialogue in the film reveal this without us needing to be told.

If and when changes were made, I could see the rationale from a film-making perspective. For example, the filmmakers wanted a villain, so they resurrected a “REAL” villain from Tolkien’s works (Azog, the pale goblin) and had him as part of the action, even though he had died earlier in battle with the dwarves, and did indeed hate Thorin’s family. If you have to have a villain, I’d much rather have them use an actual character from Tolkien’s works, and use him appropriately, than create a new one. Well done, all!

If you’re curious where the extra information for the film came from (outside of The Hobbit), you can find it in the following works, all by J.R.R. Tolkien and all but the first edited by his son, Christopher Tolkien:

THE RETURN OF THE KING (third volume in THE LORD OF THE RINGS, see the Appendices)

UNFINISHED TALES (see the chapters titled “The Quest of Erebor” and “The Istari”, about why Gandalf chose Bilbo for the quest, Thorin discussing the quest with Gandalf, the bigger picture of how the quest fits into Middle-earth history, and more on the 5 wizards)

THE SILMARILLION (see the chapter titled “Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age”)

And for an extra bonus if you’re up to it: THE PEOPLES OF MIDDLE-EARTH, volume 12 in the HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH series (see chapter 13. titled “Last Writings” to learn a bit more about the 5 wizards. This book also has a few drafted chapters by Tolkien that he was toying with as a sequel for The Lord of the Rings titled “The New Shadow,” but I digress…)

The summary for the extra material is this: It adds a richness and depth to the story that would have been impossible or disastrous if not made by people who understood and appreciated Tolkien’s works. This film, and the additional content, was made for fans, by fans, and was an evident labor of love. It seems now that Peter Jackson has multiple Oscars, a knighthood, and sufficient financial backing behind him – he could make the film he wanted to without fear of its reception. Lord of the Rings was a hard-fought battle to get it to cinemas. The Hobbit is a celebration.

The Wheaton College Tolkien Society at the 3D midnight showing of The Hobbit.

HEY – THAT WAS IN THE BOOK!

The elements from book to film I thought were done exceptionally well are as follows:

-Keeping the songs and some of the more light-hearted and comic elements of the story intact.

-Martin Freeman does an amazing Bilbo Baggins. Honest, loyal, uncertain of himself, not wanting adventure, and not heroic…yet. 🙂 He is incredibly endearing and certainly won my heart over in the first film.

-Almost everyone I’ve talked to and reviews I’ve seen online say the Riddle Game with Gollum was done to perfection. If you think what high stakes rested on this iconic scene that is, for many, the defining scene of the book – you’ll realize just what an amazing feat this is.

-The cinematography, costuming, and music were (as we’ve come to expect from Jackson’s films) beautiful and stunning.

-So many fine lines from the book were included in this film. The Wheaton audiences certainly cheered nice and loud when Bilbo said: “In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit…”

ENJOYABLE BITS

-I was really pleased to see the connectivity to the Rings films with the opening sequences of Bilbo and Frodo. I think that although The Hobbit is quite a different work and needs a lighter, less “epic” tone as a children’s story – it will be to everyone’s benefit to feel a strong continuity between these films and their predecessors. It is one big story, so for all future movie marathons and film audiences, what a great thing to make it look and feel like one story. 🙂

-The character and story arcs unfolding bear great promise. The tension between dwarves and elves, the appearance of the Arkenstone, and the characters of Thorin and Bilbo in particular have been set extremely well with the rest of the storyline to follow. My heart gave a big twinge of anticipatory grief when I saw Thorin embrace Bilbo at the end of this film. Book readers know where his character is going by the end.

-Such fine weight was placed at necessary moral moments: Gandalf’s counsel about sparing life when he gives Bilbo his sword, Bilbo’s dramatic pause when thinking about killing Gollum, Bilbo’s delightful speech about why he is on the quest to help his friends regain their home near the end of the film. This is delicate, thoughtful screenwriting right when it is needed. I also enjoyed Gandalf’s charge to Bilbo to embrace the world outside his door at the beginning of the film.

COMMON COMPLAINTS, AND A FEW NOTES OF DISAPPOINTMENT

This section of the review, at least for my part, is blessedly and unexpectedly brief.

PACING

Many reviews I’ve read have varied greatly when it comes to describing the pacing of the film. Some said it was “too action-packed,” others said it was too slow and it was a big mistake to try and spread this story over 3 films. I find this variance amongst film critics very perplexing. For myself, the first time I saw the movie I felt it was a bit slow (since my comparison point was, inevitably, the Rings films which had much more ground to cover in the same amount of time), but the second time I saw it I felt the pacing was perfect.

CRITICS VS. FANS

There seems to be a large disconnect at this point in time between film critics and movie audiences / fans. The critics are giving some low and edgy reviews, while many of the book fans are saying they really enjoyed the film. One of my friends thinks Hollywood is jealous of Jackson’s and New Zealand’s success (this was the largest grossing movie for a December opening, although not by # of tickets sold – inflation and IMAX sales helped push the numbers up), and hence are writing scathing reviews to “punish” him. I’m not entirely sure, but remember fondly that literary critics and popular reading audiences had a similar divide when Tolkien’s original books were published as well. Somehow, it seems fitting that critics aren’t able to see what the common man can. Tell others you know not to pay too much heed to the reviews. Go see the film and judge for yourself what you think.

FILM SPEED

This is the first film to be shot at 48 fps (frames per second), which is twice the speed of the normal 24 fps we see in films today. I haven’t seen the higher speed yet, and don’t really care that much about 3D, so I don’t have a lot to comment here. To learn more about the technology at work, see this helpful article with Peter Jackson. I’ve HEARD that the higher film speed is so realistic it actually looks extremely low-budget and even downright creepy!

GANDALF

I found it very intriguing that the screenwriters chose to make Gandalf appear much more unsure of himself and, for lack of a better word, fearful in this film vs. the Rings films. Granted, in The Hobbit he has his moments of doubt, but he still always seems firm, authoritative, and in control even when he’s not sure about how things will proceed or if their company is choosing correctly. I appreciated his comment in the film that he is doing “what he deems to be right” as the motivation for his actions, which is spot-on with his character. His stance of awe with Galadriel was also a bit confusing. As a maia, he is technically (I think, correct me if I’m wrong) more powerful than any of the elves, although he works closely alongside them in many deeds. I anticipate that his character will grow in boldness as the Hobbit films progress until he matches nicely with the Gandalf we see in the Rings films. Perhaps the film folks just wanted more of a character arc development for him, and since this is a tame change compared to their treatment of Faramir, I am very prone to be forgiving!

THE EAGLES

The eagles do not speak, Gandalf summons them, and once again they are shown serving as the public transportation service of Middle-earth. I think it is a loss to not see them as their own culture and treated with the same care given to the Ents, etc. in the other films. Also, their coming is symbolic of Divine grace and as servants of Manwe they are a beautiful image of how the higher powers of Middle-earth are still part of the action. Too bad, but overall a minor concern in comparison with other things that COULD have been awful and weren’t. 🙂

MY RATING

This film was beautifully done and exceeded my expectations. It shows that screenwriters who truly do understand a work of fantasy can create a film that fans can appreciate and enjoy. A big “thumbs up from me” and I look forward to the next installment! 😀

WCTS at our private screening for Wheaton College.